[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #747
b-greek-digest Sunday, 11 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 747
In this issue:
Re: Porneia
unsubscribe
Royse on P75
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Reductio ad concubinum
Re: Mark and Midrash
Re: B-GRK: Re: Dynamic Equiva...
Re: Mark, Midrash, and Progymnastic rhetoric
Re: B-GRK: Re: Dynamic Equiva...
Mark and Midrash
AOL/WP6.0 help
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 22:35:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Porneia
Stephen Carlson wrote:
> > Can <porneia> include, say, sex between people engaged to
> > be married?
> What about Jn8:41, hHMEIS EK PORNEIAS OU GEGENNHMEQA ("we
> are not born out of PORNEIA"), with the inference they may
> have been referring to the circumstances of the Virgin
> Birth?
I don't think there is any evidence at all that would show a
Jewish condemnation of a child born to parents who conceived
that child when they were betrothed, or that such a conception
would remotely fit within the semantic domain of "porneia" or
any semitic equivalent. The accusation concerning Jesus's birth
did not involve Mary's betrothed husband, Joseph, but rather
an accusation of adultery, i.e. that Mary had committed
adultery with (perhaps a carpenter?) other than her
betrothed husband.
It should also be asked how much of an issue premarital
sex would have been (for women) in a society in which girls
were usually betrothed and married by age 13. Ruth, the
heroine of the biblical book by that name, may have been
a little older. But there, premarital sex (i.e. coming to
Boaz's bed and "feet" at night) seems to have been
regarded as an honorable way to catch a husband.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: JSWald@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:12:46 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe jswald@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 09:55 EDT
Subject: Royse on P75
Jeff Kloha mentions James Royse's work on P75 and
scribal habits. Royse has a nice article in the Metzger
Festschrift that Mike Holmes and I recently edited (_The
Text of the NT in Contemporary Research: Essays on the
Status Quaestionis), in which he deals with the problem
of scribal habits more generally with some good specific
detail. And fortunately his dissertation in whcih the
full materials are presented is in fact _going_ to see
the light of published day. As I understand it, it is
set to be the next volume in Studies and Documents, edited
by Eldon Epp.
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:58:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com) wrote:
>
>TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
>
> Tim Staker, Timster132@aol.com said...
>>>but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of the gospels, it is
>>>clear that he is unaware of the angel(s), the rich man's tomb,
>>>the guards, the stone. All he says is that Christ was dead,
>>>was buried, and was raised by God.
>
> On 6/4, David Moore, dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com, said...
>> In terms of what Paul was, or was not, aware of, isn't it
>>precarious to base conclusions in this matter on an argument
>>from silence?
>> If all Paul said were that Christ was dead, was buried, and
>>was raised by God (He says quite a bit more by the way.),
>>does that mean, or even imply, that nothing more than that
>> happened?
>
> In part, David, yes it is an argument from silence. But I am also
basing
>this argument on the idea that the gospel tradition developed
>as early Christianity spread. Divergent Jewish traditions, as well as
>Gentile, were used to communicate the gospel. Already in the
communities to
>which the Pauline and Dt-Pauline writings, we find
>an interesting diversity of Christian worship, polity, and theology.
> By the second generation, Christians also used different genres as
well,
>namely narrative and apocalyptic lit, as well as continuing
>pseudopigraphic epistles.
> Like other religious traditions, the early church evolved and grew.
The
>NT writings cover a period of some 50 or more years.
> One can perceive this development in the theological reflection
>in the NT, when the documents are examined not as concurrent, but in
their
>chronological order.
> The developmental idea is what is behind what I have said about
Paul and
>the details found in later gospel narratives.
Tim,
It seems, IMO, faulty logic to draw the conclusions you have from
the data you mention. You are arguing that because we can see some
differences between early and later Christian writings, the Gospel
message must have grown by accretion during that period. That just
doesn't follow. Should we say that the great majority of the material
reported in the Gospels is simply accretion because it doesn't appear
in Paul? Such logic would be, and is, radically flawed.
It is necessary that we understand that the Gospels have a
different purpose than Paul's writings. Paul's theological conclusions
could be said to grow out of the episodes and teachings that the
Gospels report, but it is obvious that Paul didn't set out to write the
kind of document represented by the Gospels. This needs to be kept in
mind whenever we compare the testimony from the latter and from Paul.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 15:34:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Reductio ad concubinum
<Perhaps I may venture a simple, if
unpopular, exegetical guideline: Offer no
exegesis that makes Paul out to be a complete
fool (especially when alternative exegesis is
perfectly sensible).--Paul Moser, Loyola University
of Chicago.>
May it be written in the record and inscribed for a memorial in stone. Makes
a darn good tagline, too. :)
James>>>
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 17:35:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
TO: hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca
Larry W. Hurtado, hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca, said on 6/5...
>I suggest that nothing is gained by taking a perfectly clear and
>good term, Midrash, and then confusedly using it for something
>other than a midrash, as if this advanced anything, either in
>clarifying the nature of the Gospels or of midrash.
To create another classification of midrash, such as narrative
midrash, may mean redefining the term, and I can understand
the hesitancy of doing that. I fully affirm the traditional definition
of midrash-- but I am suggesting that we add to the three traditional
catagories of midrash, ie, exegetical, propositional and theological treatise
(see the latest edition of Jacob Nausser, _Intro to Rabbinical Lit_, the
chapter on midrash. BTW, I highly recommend this book.
It is well worth the $40). Narrative midrash is just another form of
midrash, like the other three.
Now one may want to argue that narrative midrash belongs to the third
catagory of theological treatise. But I would suggest that because of its
form being so different, that one might want to make another classification.
You say that nothing is gained by applying the term midrash
to the narratives of the gospels. I think that there is. One important
reason why I prefer to use the term midrash is that there is a strong
tendency, even among some scholars, to literalize the clearly midrashic
elements of certain passages and even to historicize
them.
In a similar vein, the book of Revelation, for example, which has often
been literalized (to the point of being ludicrous). But when we
recognize that Revelation belongs to the genre of apocalyptic literature,
symbolic passages are read for what there are. (Some
have argued that Revelation technically isn't apocalyptic lit, since it
has some divergent characteristics, yet we interpret it as we do
other apocalyptic lit, and while it may not fit one classification of
that genre, doesn't mean it isn't another form within the genre. And
we recognize it as such.)
So it is, you see, with Narrative Midrash. To call its such it to
recognize that the gospel writer's story-telling is embodied in interpreting
OT passages, references and images. This is narrative midrash.
Seeing the gospels as narrative midrash allows us to be be free
from literalizing and look into the meaning the gospel author had in mind as
he was retelling the OT stories in order to tell his story about Jesus and
the apostles.
Calling the gospels narrative midrash gives us the opportunity
to ask: was Matt speaking literally or figuratively (ie, midrashic) when he
said Judas Iscariot hanged himself, or was he retelling
the story of Ahithophel (who betrayed David- 2 Sam 17:23) to
explain what it meant for Judas to betray Jesus?
And was the 30 pieces of silver given to Judas for his betrayal literal,
or was it an interpretive midrash on Judas based on the story of Zechariah,
who wanted to resign being a prophet and the Lord told him he could return
his wages of 30 pieces of silver (Zech 11:4-14)?
Were the magi in Matt 2 literal, or where they a narative midrash
exaplining the importance of Jesus' birth based on Is 41:2, Is 60:1-6, Is
49:1-7 and possibly on the story of Balaam in Numbers 22-24?
Was Matthew's reference to Is 7:14 not a literal foretelling
and fulfillment of virginal conception and birth, but instead
Matthew's narrative midrash of "the naming of Jesus" based not
on an exegetical midrash of Is 7:14, but a midrash on the story
about the young woman with child who was to name her child Immanuel as a sign
to kings (actually to King Ahaz when
two other kings were attacking him)? Doesn't it make more sense
to see this particular passage as narrative midrash rather
than exegetical midrash?
These kinds of examples are numerous, as you know. I won't
go on, but I hope that this is enough evidence to show what I
mean by calling the gospels narrative midrash.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 17:35:54 -0400
Subject: Re: B-GRK: Re: Dynamic Equiva...
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Shaughn Daniel, zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de,
said on 6/4/95....
>Recently, I have been gathering some info for my fiancee on
>the translation of tekton, a description of Jesus' occupation.
>Interestingly, there are various sources which state that term
>can mean different things entirely: carpenter, mason, and >stonecutter.
>I've preached it before, and have heard it said many times, that
>"the hands that worked with wood were nailed to a tree", or
>something similar to that, all based on the concept of Jesus,
>the carpenter's son. Well, I've been wondering about the
>symbolic significance of Jesus as a stonecutter....
This has been debated through the centuries, by ancients and moderns, so a
definitive answer is probably not forthcoming.
Here are some 2nd century sources: According to Maximus
Tyrius, hO TEKTWN makes AROTRA (plows). Justin says
that he makes both AROTRA and ZUGA (yokes). Epictetus
said he worked with wood. Aelius Aristides says with stone.
Jesus is called hO TEKTWN in Mark 6:3 and O TOU TEKTONOS hUIOUS in Mt
13:55. In these parallel passages, this is what he
was called by the townsfolk at Nazereth. And these are the only
two times the word is found in the NT.
In the OT (LXX), the TEKTWN was known as a maker of idols.
See Isaiah 44:13 and the Letter of Jeremiah 1:8. Perhaps the TEKTWN
reference to Jesus in Mark and Matthew was meant
as an insult or a slur toward Jesus since it is the townsfolk who
are saying it.
A more common NT word is OIKODOMOUNTES which means
builders, masons which worked with stones. See Mt 21:42, Mk 12:10, Lk 20:17,
Act 4:11, 1Pt 2:7, Barnabas 6:4, and Hermas (Simil.) 9,4,4 and 9,6,6 as well
as Ps 118:22 (117:22 LXX).
The problem of understanding what TEKTWN meant was
probably due to the regional differences, and the local usage
of the word. In Israel, most houses were built with stones, not
wood since stones were plentiful. But some were built with
wood, too. So if a TEKTWN worked on houses, he might also
work with stone. But if a TEKTWN specialized in plows, yokes and
maybe chairs, tables, etc., he may not have necessarily been a
builder who worked with stone.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 19:31:51 EST
Subject: Re: Mark, Midrash, and Progymnastic rhetoric
> Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
>
> >I suggest that nothing is gained by taking a perfectly clear and
> >good term, Midrash, and then confusedly using it for something
> >other than a midrash, as if this advanced anything, either in
> >clarifying the nature of the Gospels or of midrash.
To which Tim Staker replied:
> You say that nothing is gained by applying the term midrash
> to the narratives of the gospels. I think that there is. One important
> reason why I prefer to use the term midrash is that there is a strong
> tendency, even among some scholars, to literalize the clearly midrashic
> elements of certain passages and even to historicize
> them.
>
> So it is, you see, with Narrative Midrash. To call its such it to
> recognize that the gospel writer's story-telling is embodied in interpreting
> OT passages, references and images. This is narrative midrash.
..................
> Calling the gospels narrative midrash gives us the opportunity
> to ask: was Matt speaking literally or figuratively (ie, midrashic) when he
> said Judas Iscariot hanged himself, or was he retelling
> the story of Ahithophel (who betrayed David- 2 Sam 17:23) to
> explain what it meant for Judas to betray Jesus?
..................
> These kinds of examples are numerous, as you know. I won't
> go on, but I hope that this is enough evidence to show what I
> mean by calling the gospels narrative midrash.
To which I reply:
It seems that one person's "midrash" is another person's
progymnastic rhetoric, especially the type of progymnastic
rhetoric that occurs at the rhetorical intersection of
Hellenistic and Jewish environments. Thus the "either/or" of
either Jewish ("midrash") OR hellenistic ("rhetoric") style of
interpretation/writing is a false dichotomy. It was a "both/and"
spectrum in the first century.
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 17:09:12 -0700
Subject: Re: B-GRK: Re: Dynamic Equiva...
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com) wrote
>
> The problem of understanding what TEKTWN meant was
>probably due to the regional differences, and the local usage
>of the word. In Israel, most houses were built with stones, not
>wood since stones were plentiful. But some were built with
>wood, too. So if a TEKTWN worked on houses, he might also
>work with stone. But if a TEKTWN specialized in plows, yokes and
>maybe chairs, tables, etc., he may not have necessarily been a
>builder who worked with stone.
If he made yokes, it would give special meaning to Mat. 11:29, 30,
wouldn't it.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 18:30:29 -0700
Subject: Mark and Midrash
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com)
> So it is, you see, with Narrative Midrash. To call its such it to
>recognize that the gospel writer's story-telling is embodied in
interpreting
>OT passages, references and images. This is narrative midrash.
> Seeing the gospels as narrative midrash allows us to be be free
>from literalizing and look into the meaning the gospel author had in
mind as
>he was retelling the OT stories in order to tell his story about Jesus
and
>the apostles.
Isn't this just wrapping eisegesis in the cloak of "midrash"?
Isn't "being free from literalizing..." simply another way of saying
that the interpreter rejects the plain meaning of the text to be able
to project onto it meanings that better fit his or her own
presuppositions? And what would such an interpreter do with those
points in the NT narratives which also receive mention in other ancient
sources? Would he say that these are historical, but the rest is
(narrative) midrash? Such an approach would depend on highly
subjective criteria and would open the door to interpretation that
would be tendentious to an extreme.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 00:08:31 -0400
Subject: AOL/WP6.0 help
I realize this is *not* the forum to ask the following question, so I ask for
forgiveness in advance. Is there anyone who uses AOL and WordPerfect 6.0 who
can tell me how to transfer my WP files into the AOL mailer so it won't "hang
up" my system? I've tried all sorts of things and have not had any luck.
Thanks,
William Brooks
Pastor in waiting
PS--probably best to contact me privately @ yirah@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #747
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu